Fake Einstein once said it’s the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. But what’s it called when you do the same thing over and over again for the purpose of getting the same result, knowing the mainstream media will let you pretend you’ve done something new and exciting each time? That’s the question raised by a New York Times piece entitled “That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work.”

A couple years ago a chart by the researcher Louis Klarevas made the rounds showing that “gun massacres” fell during the assault-weapon ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. I wrote at the time:

[Klarevas counts] incidents in which six or more people are killed. . . .

The pattern here is real; it shows up in the data set compiled by Mother Jones — which puts the fatality cutoff at four, includes only incidents that occur in public, and excludes gang activity — as well. As you can see in a chart made by Alan Reynolds at Cato, while the ban years included a rash of school shootings including Columbine, they also included some unusually calm years in the early to mid 2000s. It’s worth noting, though, that if you look at all incidents including four or more fatalities, the pattern is no longer evident.

So: Yes, there was a dip in mass shootings, at least under certain definitions of that term, during the ban. The ban years were especially peaceful mass-shooting-wise when compared with the horrific rise we’ve seen lately. But no, that doesn’t mean the ban caused the dip or that its expiration caused the recent rise — and there are good reasons to doubt it.

Don’t forget, for example, that the ban only stopped new guns and magazines from entering the market; it did nothing to reduce the supply of used copies. After all, Columbine happened during the ban, and in that case a minorused a “banned” weapon he was able to procure anyway. Even if you think gun bans work, a ten-year pause on new sales of certain specific types of weapons is not very likely to have a measurable impact, especially on such a statistically rare and erratic crime as mass shootings. Also important is that the features distinguishing “assault weapons” from ordinary hunting rifles are essentially cosmetic, and that handguns, not rifles of any kind, are the type of weapon most frequently used in mass shootings.

That didn’t stop Joe Biden from claiming the ban worked earlier this summer in the New York Times, though, and further claiming “multiple analyses” backed him up — pointing to another study that did more or less the same analysis on a different data set.

Recent mass shootings have revived demands for meaningful gun control. But many opponents of a renewed federal ban on assault weapons, led by the National Rifle Association, say the earlier ban, from 1994 to 2004, made no difference. Our new research shows otherwise.

We found that public mass shootings — which we defined as incidents in which a gunman killed at least six people in public — dropped during the decade of the federal ban. Yet, in the 15 years since the ban ended, the trajectory of gun massacres has been sharply upward, largely tracking the growth in ownership of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Using the Mother Jones mass shooting database, we identified the number of gun massacres over a 35-year period. (And following the F.B.I.’s approach, we excluded crimes of armed robbery and gang or domestic violence in evaluating public active shooter incidents.) Compared with the decade before its adoption, the federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).

Recommended Articles

Most Popular

To a certain kind of Rachel Maddow viewer, there are few more titillating preludes to a news segment than the one she delivered Monday: “If you have not seen it yet, you are going to want to sit down.”
Maddow’s story began, as many of her stories do, with President Trump, this time focused on his hotel ...
Read More

Federal prosecutors in Washington have recommended that criminal charges be filed against Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, and the Justice Department has rejected a last-ditch appeal by McCabe’s lawyers, according to a report on Thursday by Fox News. This clears the way for what appears to be ...
Read More

Early Monday morning, Donald Trump tweeted: “94% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. Thank you!”
Where the president got this specific number remains a mystery. Recent polls by YouGov put his GOP approval roughly ten points lower, and Gallup, which has tracked Trump’s popularity since he ...
Read More

Making the click-through worthwhile: Why last night’s Democratic presidential primary debate was so bad; a suddenly hot issue that surprisingly never came up last night; an important and under-discussed detail about that Trump resort in Scotland; and a very important appointment for this weekend.
The ...
Read More

When John Bolton left his job as national security adviser -- President Trump says he fired him, Bolton says he quit -- the secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, weighed in. “The president’s view on the Iraq War and Ambassador Bolton’s was very different,” he said. Yes, they were very ...
Read More

If you haven’t read Politico’s lengthy investigative report on Jerry Falwell Jr.’s conduct as president of Liberty University, published earlier this week, I’d urge you to do so. It’s a sordid tale of the self-dealing, personal ambition, and extreme intolerance for dissent that’s long been an open ...
Read More

In a 2018 midterm election that didn’t give Republicans a lot to laugh about, one development that no doubt left them smiling was watching progressives across the country donate $80 million to Beto O’Rourke, in a Texas Senate race that was always going to be a steep uphill climb. Democratic party leaders can ...
Read More